Here's how the F-16 Falcon could replace the F-15 Eagle

Low&Slow

Ancora imparo
Here's how the F-16 Falcon could replace the F-15 Eagle

The F-15 Eagle, arguably the most successful fighter jet of the modern age, could be in for an early retirement with the US Air Force thanks to skyrocketing upgrade and refurbishment costs.

In a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Air Force and Air National Guard brass informed the panel that a plan was recently formed to retire and replace the F-15C/D variant of the Eagle far ahead of schedule by a matter of decades, though no decision had been made on that plan. While the Air Force did plan to keep the Eagle flying till 2040 through a $4 billion upgrade, it was recently determined that a further $8 billion would need to be invested in refurbishing the fuselages of these Eagles, driving up the costs of retaining the F-15C/D even higher than originally expected — presenting what seems to be the final nail the Eagle’s eventual coffin.

So, what will the Air Force likely do to replace this 40-year-old wonder jet?

The Air Force had at first planned to replace the F-15 with the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, but successive cuts to the Raptor program left the branch with only 187 fighters, a substantially lower quantity than the planned buy of around 700. This forced the decision to keep the Eagles in service longer, and thus, the aforementioned investment of over $4 billion was made towards upgrading all combat coded F-15C/Ds with new radars, networking systems, and avionics to keep these fighters in service up till around 2040, when it would be replaced with a newer sixth-generation fighter, also superseding the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor.

Once the F-15 gets pulled by the mid-2020s, the Air Force claims it already has a solution to replace what was once a bastion of American air power.

This solution comes in the form of enhancing F-16 Fighting Falcons with new radars from Northrop Grumman, and networking systems to take over the Eagle’s role in North American air defense, at least in the interim until the Air Force begins and completes its sixth-generation fighter project, which will bring about an even more capable air superiority fighter replacement for both the F-22 and the F-15.

The Air Force has already begun extending the lives of its F-16s till 2048, through a fleet-wide Service Life Extension Program that will add an extra 4,000 flight hours to its Fighting Falcons. Air Force leadership has also advocated buying more fighters, namely the F-35A Lightning II, faster, so that when the hammer does eventually drop on the Eagle, the branch’s fighter fleet won’t be left undersized and vulnerable.

Even with upgrades, however, the F-16 still has some very big boots to fill.

The F-15 was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, meaning it was built to excel at shooting other aircraft down; all other mission types, like performing air-to-ground strikes, were secondary to its main tasking. To perform in this role, the Eagle was given stellar range, sizable weapons carriage, fantastic speed (over two and a half times the speed of sound), and a high operational ceiling. Conversely, the F-16 was designed as a low-cost alternative to the F-15, able to operate in a variety of roles, though decidedly not as well as the F-15 could with the air-to-air mission. Its combat range, weapons load and speed fall short of the standard set by the Eagle. Regardless, the Air Force still believes that the F-16 will be the best interim solution until the 6th generation fighter is fielded.

The USAF’s most decorated F-16 pilot, Dan Hampton, doesn’t disagree with these plans. In an interview with The War Zone, Hampton argues that though the F-16 lacks the weapons payload that the F-15 possesses, advances in missile guidance and homing make carrying more air-to-air weaponry a moot point, as pilots would likely hit their mark with the first or second shot, instead of having to fire off a salvo of missiles. Hampton adds that the F-16’s versatility in being able to perform a diverse array of missions makes it more suitable for long-term upgrades to retain it over the Eagle. Whether or not this will actually work out the way the Air Force hopes it will is anybody’s guess.
 
Meanwhile Israel has turned their F15's into a plane that could replace almost anything else.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-saga-of-how-israel-turned-its-f-15s-into-mu-1701606283

Necessity being the mother of invention while simultaneously dealing with the limitations of the Foreign Military Sales and assistance program.

They basically took the long way around to do what we did, build a Strike Eagle. For the people on the "Israel did it first!" kick, sometimes function drives form. Many of the theories and ideas and courses of action that ended up in our E model and Israel's home made multi-mission C model had been around for years at the time.


To the original post, yes as much as they haven't been involved in recent conflict, a modified F-16 is not a replacement for an F-15C. It goes beyond mission equipment and straight to the core idea of the Air Dominance. The Eagle is there to do a job, be it somewhat niche they do it very well because it's a concentration. Lopping more weight onto the F-16 community to hold up the Eagles chunk of the Air Dominance foundation is just going to lead to more of the jack of all trades master of none effect. End of the day we didn't buy Raptors to replace them because "it'll be cheaper to keep the Eagle and supplement them with Raptors." Now we've got people selling the same bad idea as "It'll be easier to supplement raptors with Vipers instead of Eagles" and forgetting the original point where all this started, buying an adequate fleet of top end fighters to replace the now over 40 year old fleet of top end fighters reaching parity with future foes.
 
My personal opinion - the air superiority mission will be moot by that point, as it is more likely that enemy fighters will be engaged on the ground by drones anyway.

Fighters are inherently a defensive weapon, and the threat of aircraft to intercept becomes less and less every passing year.
 
My personal opinion - the air superiority mission will be moot by that point, as it is more likely that enemy fighters will be engaged on the ground by drones anyway.

Fighters are inherently a defensive weapon, and the threat of aircraft to intercept becomes less and less every passing year.

Air Superiority goes beyond enemy fighters though. And with Russia demonstrating a lot of its new TTPs in Ukraine it's even more critical because of the precision and depth they now posses in regards to the ability to reach into our AO and annihilate us. Being able to stay over his battle space and make him reactive is going to be what wins or loses the next time we have a knock down drag out fight and you only get that through establishing Air Superiority. We could abandon fighter based Air Superiority and go to an eastern model of mobile ground based systems but it would require us to completely remodel the way our military is structured and whatever we saved in fighters we would spend 3 times that developing long range precision strike and defense from the ground.

Air Superiority is every aspect of that 3rd dimension of warfare and it's absolutely critical to the model our entire joint structure moves around. It's also one of the reasons those of us involved in planning the "next war," keep shouting so loud about a repeated never ending cycle of cuts against replacing our stuff that blew the doors off everybody in 91 so it must still be great. Potential foes reached parity in a lot of arenas.

The old adage goes of building the ark before the storm, but we keep robbing Peter to pay Paul and saying "F it we will do it live." We tried that before during Clinton and Bush and it resulted in things like running our of cruise missiles in the middle of a conflict during Desert Fox or the famous Going to war with the Army you have moment with Rumsfield.
 
The old adage goes of building the ark before the storm, but we keep robbing Peter to pay Paul and saying "F it we will do it live." We tried that before during Clinton and Bush and it resulted in things like running our of cruise missiles in the middle of a conflict during Desert Fox or the famous Going to war with the Army you have moment with Rumsfield.

Well, funding for an F-22 replacement is unlikely to happen in any real way anytime soon. The F-22 program cost was $62 billion for 180 aircraft. A replacement will likely be 4 times that. Hell, the AF would be happy with more F-22's and that isn't going to happen either.
 
Well, funding for an F-22 replacement is unlikely to happen in any real way anytime soon. The F-22 program cost was $62 billion for 180 aircraft. A replacement will likely be 4 times that. Hell, the AF would be happy with more F-22's and that isn't going to happen either.

It comes down to making the people with the purses commit to the plan they made us carry out.

Nobody is saying we have to buy Raptors, but but I'd love it if we could commit to a plan of use/upgrade the Eagles to work with the Raptors and then not wait a few years and try and see off the Eagles when everybody forgets we committed to keeping them over a much more expensive option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top